ARY SETYANINGTYAS, DWI (2007) ANALISIS YURIDIS NORMATIF PENGEMBALIAN KERUGIAN KEUANGAN NEGARA DALAM KASUS TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI MELALUI INSTRUMEN HUKUM PERDATA. Other thesis, University of Muhammadiyah Malang.
|
Text
ANALISIS YURIDIS NORMATIF PENGEMBALIAN KERUGIAN KEUANGAN NEGARA.pdf Download (157kB) | Preview |
Abstract
The objective of study was the restitution of state financial loss after corruption criminal case through civil law instrument. Any measures against corruption crime started with 1999 No.31 Act jo 2001 No. 20 Act on corruption eradication as the replacement for 1971 No.3 Act. State financial restitution might be from two instruments, criminal law and civil law. 1971 No.3 Act didn’t count about it, but the substitutes clearly, through Tipikor, determined the civil law instrument as explained in Article 32, 33, and 34 of 1999 No. 30 Act and Article 38C in 2001 No.20 Act. Method used in this research considered a normative juridical research. It was processing and analyzing related law or regulations, and literatures relevant with corruption criminal conduct. Results of research indicated that Article 32 (1) of 1999 No.31 Act jo 2001 No. 20 Act contained an explanation of actions against the law, mistakes, and causal relationship between law trespasses, in the expense of the state. Article 1365 KUHPdt added term “disprovable” meaning that if any actions against the law couldn’t be proved, the claim might be from civil. Any persons shouldn’t accept civil claim when the evidence for corruption criminal conduct had been collapsed despite the actual state financial loss. Regarding to the explanation the analysis Article 32 (1) of 1999 No.31 Act jo 2001 No. 20 Act, instead of the mistake or causal relationship between actions against the law in the expense of state, anybody couldn’t be claimed in civil instrument because of lack of evidences. Though the evidences seemed lack, another measure related to the free decision. This kind of decision remained under Article 32 (2) of Corruption Criminal Conduct Act but it should not use them in term of pure free decision for this term violated KUHAP. When free decision meant disprovable criminal substances and the impossibility to enter civil law. The definition of “free decision” explained in Article 32 (2) of Corruption Criminal Conduct Act concerned with the freedom from any claims meaning that the defendant had been approved conducting the action claimed by prosecutor, but not criminal action. In addition, when during corruption proceeding or investigation, the defendant passed away, the claim would be given to the beneficiary based on the prevailed regulation. Article 33, 34, and 38 C confirmed that when the defendant passed away, the claim would be rearranged against the beneficiary of the defendant. Corruption Criminal Conduct Act only determined the condition of passing away possibly submitted to civil case (Article 33, 34) but not prevailed for the defendant with sickness or mentally disorder. As a result, this regulation failed to afford other condition of the defendant. Therefore, it meant that the Act only explained about the passed away defendant but disregarded the defendant with sickness. Above explanations clarified that the problem developed when the beneficiary of the defendant felt necessary to conduct a reverse claim against the passed away defendant despite the defendant’s losing ability to act. In this sense, eliminated personal quality of action might stop the proceeding. Problems with beneficiary referred to a complex one because the beneficiary must take the responsibility of the wealth of the corruptor. Several classes in community still maintained different heir laws, such as Western heir law, Islamic heir law, and custom her law. For example, Chinese and people with Western law, provided interval for 3 to 4 months before rejecting the heritage such that the beneficiary might not be directly responsible for the debt made by the corruptor.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Other) |
|---|---|
| Subjects: | K Law > K Law (General) |
| Divisions: | Faculty of Law > Department of Law (74201) |
| Depositing User: | Zainul Afandi |
| Date Deposited: | 03 May 2012 01:57 |
| Last Modified: | 03 May 2012 01:57 |
| URI : | http://eprints.umm.ac.id/id/eprint/3907 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
